You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost and Effects of Different Admission Screening Strategies to Control the Spread of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002874 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanya Gurieva, Martin C. J. Bootsma, Marc J. M. Bonten |
| Abstract |
Nosocomial infection rates due to antibiotic-resistant bacteriae, e.g., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remain high in most countries. Screening for MRSA carriage followed by barrier precautions for documented carriers (so-called screen and isolate (S&I)) has been successful in some, but not all settings. Moreover, different strategies have been proposed, but comparative studies determining their relative effects and costs are not available. We, therefore, used a mathematical model to evaluate the effect and costs of different S&I strategies and to identify the critical parameters for this outcome. The dynamic stochastic simulation model consists of 3 hospitals with general wards and intensive care units (ICUs) and incorporates readmission of carriers of MRSA. Patient flow between ICUs and wards was based on real observations. Baseline prevalence of MRSA was set at 20% in ICUs and hospital-wide at 5%; ranges of costs and infection rates were based on published data. Four S&I strategies were compared to a do-nothing scenario: S&I of previously documented carriers ("flagged" patients); S&I of flagged patients and ICU admissions; S&I of flagged and group of "frequent" patients; S&I of all hospital admissions (universal screening). Evaluated levels of efficacy of S&I were 10%, 25%, 50% and 100%. Our model predicts that S&I of flagged and S&I of flagged and ICU patients are the most cost-saving strategies with fastest return of investment. For low isolation efficacy universal screening and S&I of flagged and "frequent" patients may never become cost-saving. Universal screening is predicted to prevent hardly more infections than S&I of flagged and "frequent" patients, albeit at higher costs. Whether an intervention becomes cost-saving within 10 years critically depends on costs per infection in ICU, costs of screening and isolation efficacy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 26% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2022.
All research outputs
#8,270,860
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,491
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,252
of 205,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#73
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,027 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.